Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T17:48:47.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Ocean Bottom Marine Seismic Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2021

By
Ian Jack
Edited by
Hamish Wilson ,
Keith Nunn  and
Matt Luheshi
Hamish Wilson
Affiliation:
BluEnergy Ltd
Keith Nunn
Affiliation:
Nunngeo Consulting Ltd
Matt Luheshi
Affiliation:
Leptis E&P Ltd
Get access

Summary

This chapterreviews the development of “conventional” towed streamer marine seismic work from 2D through 3D, its shortcomings, and its continuing development into so-called “broadband” seismic. It describes and explains the recent trend towards ocean-bottom recording, currently mostly executed using nodes (OBN), whose market share has expanded from around 10% in 2013 to an estimated 25% in 2020. It covers the increasing requirement for higher quality seismic data to enable imaging of the very problematic subsurface structures such as subsalt plays, which require more extensive shooting geometries and extra low-frequency bandwidths. “Blended” sources are bringing costs down, and practical research includes the use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), possibly even deployed as intelligent “swarms.” Cost comparisons of the current techniques are included.

Keywords

autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs)marine seismicocean bottom cableocean bottom nodeocean bottom seismicoptical fibrePermanent Reservoir Monitoringseismic costsseismic quality
Type
Chapter
Information
Integration of Geophysical Technologies in the Petroleum Industry , pp. 220 - 271
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abma, R., Howe, D., Foster, M., et al., 2015. Independent simultaneous source acquisition and processing. Geophysics, 80, WD37–WD44. DOI: 10.1190/geo2015-0078.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaudoin, G. and Michell, S., 2006. The Atlantis Project: OBS nodes: Defining the needs, selecting the technology and demonstrating the solution. Offshore Technology Paper 17977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaudoin, G., Reasnor, M. D., Pfister, M. and Openshaw, G., 2010. First wide-azimuth time-lapse seismic acquisition using ocean bottom seismic nodes at Atlantis field-Gulf of Mexico. Extended Abstracts, 72nd EAGE, Conference and Exhibition.Google Scholar
Beaudoin, G. and Ross, A. A., 2007. Field design and operation of a novel deepwater, wide-azimuth node seismic survey. The Leading Edge, 26(4), 494–503.Google Scholar
Boëlle, J.-L., Brechet, E., Ceragioli, E., et al., 2012. A large-scale validation of OBN technology for time-lapse studies through a pilot test, deep offshore Angola. The Leading Edge, 31(4), 397–403.Google Scholar
Boëlle, J.-L., Ricarte, P. and Suiter, J., 2005. Sparse receiver and multi-azimuthal simulations from a high fold OBC campaign in the UK North Sea. In SEG Abstracts, 2005, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenders, A., Dellinger, J., Chinaemerem, K., Qingsong, L. and Mitchell, S., 2018, The Wolfspar Field Trial: Results from a low-frequency seismic survey designed for FWI. Expanded Abstracts, 88th Annual International Meeting, SEG, 1083–6.Google Scholar
Cole, R. A. and French, W. S. 1984. Three-dimensional marine seismic data acquisition using controlled streamer feathering. In SEG Abstracts 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellinger, J., Ross, A., Meaux, D., et al., 2016. Wolfspar®, an FWI-friendly ultra-low-frequency marine seismic source. In SEG International Exposition and 86th Annual Meeting, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellinger, J., Brenders, A., Pool, R., et al., 2019, The Wolfspar® Field Trial: Testing a new paradigm for lowfrequency 3-D velocity surveys. In 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 3–6 June 2019, London.Google Scholar
Farhadiroushan, M., Parker, T., Shatalin, S., et al., 2019. Advanced geophysical measurement methods using engineered fiber optic acoustic sensor. In 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition. DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201901247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampson, G., Stefani, J. and Herkenhoff, F., 2008. Acquisition using simultaneous sources. The Leading Edge, 27(7), 918–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffe, B. H., Cary, P. W. and Lines, L. R., 1999. A simple and robust method for combining dual-sensor OBC data. CREWES Research Report, Vol. 11.Google Scholar
Houbiers, M., Roste, T., Thompson, M., Szydlik, B., Traylen, T. and Hill, D., 2011.Marine Full-azimuth field trial at Heidrun revisited. In SEG Annual Meeting, San Antonio.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, R. T. 2010. Reservoir. In Methods and Applications in Reservoir Geophysics. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar
Ikelle, L. and Amundsen, L., 2005. Introduction to Petroleum Seismology. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar
Johns, T. D., Vito, C., Clark, R. and Sarmiento, R., 2006. Multicomponent OBC (4C) prestack time imaging: Offshore Trinidad, Pamberi, LRL Block. In SEG Annual Meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, D. H., 2010. Methods and Applications in Reservoir Geophysics. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keggin, J., Rietveld, W., Benson, M., et al., 2007. Multi-azimuth 3D provides robust improvements in Nile Delta seismic imaging. In 69th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.Google Scholar
Kommedal, J. H., Fowler, S. and McGarrity, J., 2005. Improved P-wave imaging with 3D OBS data from the Clair field. First Break, 23(12). DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.2005023.Google Scholar
MacLeod, M. K., Hanson, R. A. and Bell, C. R., 1999. The Alba Field ocean bottom cable seismic survey: Impact on development. The Leading Edge, 18(11), 1306–12.Google Scholar
Muyzert, E. 2018. Design, modelling and imaging of marine seismic swarm surveys. Geophysical Prospecting. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12671. With further discussion by Gijs Vermeer in Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 2020.Google Scholar
Naldrett, G., Soulas, S., van Gestel, J.-P. and Parker, T., 2020. First subsea DAS installation for deep water reservoir monitoring. In First EAGE Workshop on Fibre Optic Sensing, 9–11 March 2020, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Parker, T., Shatalin, S. and Farhadiroushan, M., 2014, Distributed acoustic sensing: A new tool for seismic applications. First Break I32(2), February, 61–9. DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.2013034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reasnor, M., Beaudoin, G., Pfister, M., et al., 2010. Atlantis time-lapse ocean bottom node survey: a project team’s journey from acquisition through processing. In SEG Abstracts 2010.Google Scholar
Roende, H., Sheng, J., Liu, Z. and Bate, D., 2019. Considerations for a model building paradigm shift in the Gulf of Mexico. In 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, June 2019, Vol. 2019, 1–5.Google Scholar
Sil, S., Srivastava, R. P. and Sen, M. K., 2009. Observation of azimuthal anisotropy on multicomponent Atlantis node seismic data. In SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting, Houston.Google Scholar
Soubaras, R. and Dowle, R., 2010.Variable-depth streamer: A broadband marine solution. First Break, 28(12), 89–96.Google Scholar
Stopin, P. J., Hatchell, P. J., Corcoran, C., Beal, E., Gutierrez, C. and Soto, G. 2011. First OBS to OBS time lapse results in the Mars Basin. In SEG Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
van Gestel, J.-P. and Anderson, G., 2017. Integration of time lapse seismic observations into the reservoir model: A case study on Atlantis. In SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
van Gestel, J.-P., Roberts, M., Davis, S. G. and Ariston, P. O., 2013. Atlantis Ocean Bottom Nodes time-lapse observations. In SEG Annual Meeting, Houston. DOI: 10.1190/segam2013-1403.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Q., Abma, R. and Ahmed, I., 2013. A marine node simultaneous source acquisition trial at Atlantis, Gulf of Mexico. In SEG Annual Meeting, Houston. DOI: 10.1190/segam2013-0699.1.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×